Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
You only see the end of the photons journey. Lenses are what enables you to determine where the photons came from within a focal plane. This is basic optics and you would know this if you knew anything about it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Seeing things in their past? You are full of beans!
- Thread starter james blunt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fool
You only see the end of the photons journey. Lenses are what enables you to determine where the photons came from within a focal plane. This is basic optics and you would know this if you knew anything about it.
8 pages so far....amazing.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He sounds amazingly like Jim Ryan from Topix, with the exception of British spellings of certain words. Here is a link to the site if you are curious:
Evolution Debate
The thread was started by our very own @Polymath257 . And if you are not in the U.S. I am unsure of whether you can access that or not. For some reason after Trump was elected people outside of North America could no longer post there. A forum that already had more than its fair share of trolls became oppressively trollish.
I think it is only a family resemblance rather than the same figure.
One of the reasons I came over here. It's a much better environment for actual debate/discussion as opposed to trolling and counter-trolling.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Same here. There is a nice mixture here. One can troll a troll here occasionally, but there are also some serious discussions.
ecco
Veteran Member
...and I read every post on every page. Reading sustainer's posts is like watching a car wreck in very slow motion, your brain says "look away", but you just can't.
Proof? Facts are rarer than many suppose, but light years is a measure of distance. Specifically the distance light travels in a year, approximately 9.5 trillion kilometres.
The two decisions are separate, if commonly related.
I'm an atheist because I see no evidence of God.
I'm not religious because it appears unrequired and unhelpful for me. However, I'd also acknowledge that as a personal truth, rather than a universal one.
What any of that has to do with the topic at hand, I'm unsure.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
The point is , you are an atheist because you have not been programmed to accept religion in your Ai programming for it to become a belief.
You were programmed to believe the present science to be true, my point is your ''warranted'' belief of science is no more warranted than a belief of religion.
So why do you accept one belief but not another?
Why can't you accept my objective facts, which is not a belief , over your Ai belief?
Can you do basic maths?
-0.5 + 0.5 = 0
Do you accept that the above math to be true?
Because you aren't presenting objective truths. In fact, for those most part you are presenting nonsense and gross misunderstanding, even of basic concepts.
At some point in this conversation I'll realise only one of us is interested in dialogue, and the other in monologue, but what the heck. I'm an optimist. Let's have at it then.
Religion, as I mentioned in my post, is fine. I personally don't subscribe, but that's not a matter of it being 'right' or 'wrong', and I am not convinced such a dichotomy exists on the matter. I hold no belief in God, and would say I actively disbelieve in many God concepts.
Your turn to answer a question. 'Ai'...as in Artificial Intelligence? Or some other meaning? Any reason you use terms like 'Ai' and 'programming' when discussing the beliefs and practices of a human?
You should be careful telling me what I believe. It's much more effective to ask me. Promise I'll answer honestly.
I don't see present science as 'true'. I'm a little unsure how it could be, on several levels.
It's a means of systematically working out knowledge. It has limitations, but one of it's strengths is that it never assumes things it has determined at 'true'. At least, not in the sense you seem to be implying.
Simple example...is Newton's Gravitational Law true? No. It merely holds utility. Should I, then, believe Einstein's Theory of Relatively is true? Seems doubtful. But again...it's useful. A computer chip? True? Well...no...but it works.
Whatever beliefs I hold are either held due to evidence (which can be scientific, but is not limited to scientific) or are simply held beliefs that have not been sufficiently challenged by cognitive dissonance to have moved. I read quite widely, but I'm not so ignorant as to believe all my beliefs are properly evidence based.
Because you are blatantly misusing words, or are relying on fundamentally flawed logic.
Consider : Facts are facts. Objective facts is a redundant description.
And light years is a measure of distance. If you need it expressed in terms that avoids the use of the word 'year', purely because you are stuck on that being a measure of time (which in this case it assuredly is NOT) then simply think of it as 9.5 trillion kilometres. You have to admit, though, saying something is 23 light years away is far easier than describing it as 218,500,000,000,000 kms. It has utility.
Religion, as I mentioned in my post, is fine. I personally don't subscribe, but that's not a matter of it being 'right' or 'wrong', and I am not convinced such a dichotomy exists on the matter. I hold no belief in God, and would say I actively disbelieve in many God concepts.
Your turn to answer a question. 'Ai'...as in Artificial Intelligence? Or some other meaning? Any reason you use terms like 'Ai' and 'programming' when discussing the beliefs and practices of a human?
You should be careful telling me what I believe. It's much more effective to ask me. Promise I'll answer honestly.
I don't see present science as 'true'. I'm a little unsure how it could be, on several levels.
It's a means of systematically working out knowledge. It has limitations, but one of it's strengths is that it never assumes things it has determined at 'true'. At least, not in the sense you seem to be implying.
Simple example...is Newton's Gravitational Law true? No. It merely holds utility. Should I, then, believe Einstein's Theory of Relatively is true? Seems doubtful. But again...it's useful. A computer chip? True? Well...no...but it works.
Whatever beliefs I hold are either held due to evidence (which can be scientific, but is not limited to scientific) or are simply held beliefs that have not been sufficiently challenged by cognitive dissonance to have moved. I read quite widely, but I'm not so ignorant as to believe all my beliefs are properly evidence based.
Because you are blatantly misusing words, or are relying on fundamentally flawed logic.
Consider : Facts are facts. Objective facts is a redundant description.
And light years is a measure of distance. If you need it expressed in terms that avoids the use of the word 'year', purely because you are stuck on that being a measure of time (which in this case it assuredly is NOT) then simply think of it as 9.5 trillion kilometres. You have to admit, though, saying something is 23 light years away is far easier than describing it as 218,500,000,000,000 kms. It has utility.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
No offense, but you remind me of a fish asking to "see" the water you are immersed in. God is within you.
So show the fish the water and its properties. We do the same with the air that is all around us, after all.
What does it even mean to say 'God is in us'? Which organ?
So once again you can't justify your claim have to resort to hyperbole.
FYI, fish have a better eyesight than humans, particularly, a much wider frequency range, and still no god..
james blunt
Well-Known Member
No, you are replying from memory, defending a memory. Ignore that memory , transfer it to your sub-consciousness.
Then try again in discussing what I am saying, you are not discussing what I am saying.
Would you discuss a book with one title but be referring to a different book?
Of course not, so why are you discussing a different book?
Read my ''book'' and discuss that ''book'', then what you say is gross nonsense , may just make sense
let us start fresh and go back to the throwing balls to each other.
Can you answer that question ? .
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Did you inherit that information or is this your own ''work''?
Which question? The one on the timing of the balls? I already did. Oh, but that is a memory. I can't use that. Nor any knowledge I've acquired. Nor common sense, obviously.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
I think we would all agree that the whole world would have to forget every fact that science has discovered in order for your claims to even start to make sense.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
That's the definition of a light year. It is the DISTANCE light travels in one year.
This statement is true. Now, what is the relevance of that statement?
I can give many others:
-1 + 1 =0
-2 + 2 =0
-1.5 + 1.5 =0
-2 + 4 = 2
etc.
So?
I didn't invent the term 'light year', if that's what you're asking.
Neither did I invent the phone I'm typing this message on, nor the internet which allows me to put the message up for public consideration.
Why?